Technology - Google News |
- Mozilla omits CPU architecture information from Firefox's user agent - Ghacks Technology News
- One of the creepiest series in YouTube history is now a decade old and can’t seem to die - The Verge
- Hulu with Live TV review: Frustrating menus, limited DVR spoil the deal - CNET
| Mozilla omits CPU architecture information from Firefox's user agent - Ghacks Technology News Posted: 22 Jun 2019 12:35 AM PDT Mozilla plans to omit CPU architecture information from Firefox's user agent and several supported APIs to reduce the digital fingerprint of Firefox users. Web browsers reveal information automatically to websites that users open in the applications. The user agent reveals information about the browser and browser version, operating system, and, up until recently, also the CPU architecture. Fingerprinting scripts use user agent information and other information, e.g. language and location, to create digital fingerprints. The accuracy of fingerprints increases with the number of unique data points. Firefox won't reveal one of the information bits to scripts and sites anymore going forward. The change, implemented already in recent Firefox Nightly 69 builds, omits CPU architecture information from the user agent. Firefox used to differentiate between the following CPU architectures:
Firefox users who run Firefox 69 will notice that scripts that return the user agent won't differentiate the information anymore. A simply Google search for check user agent reveals that as seen on the screenshot below.
The current Nightly version of Firefox run on a test system returns the following user agent:
The change affects 32-bit Firefox installations that run on 64-bit versions of a Windows or Linux operating system. These versions will use the following user agent as of Firefox 69:
The change applies to the user agent and the APIs navigator.userAgent, navigator.platform, and navigator.oscpu. Modifying the user agent information in this way is a low risk change according to Mozilla that should not impact functionality or compatibility. Mozilla's plugin finder service used the information provided by the user agent to direct users to the correct Flash Player download. Adobe Flash is the last plugin that Firefox supports but the installer is universal so that a differentiation is no longer necessary. Flash, additionally, will be retired in late 2020. The change is the first step of a more extensive rewriting process that will remove CPU architecture information entirely from the Firefox user agent and relevant APIs. The major change requires extensive testing as it has a higher probability of causing web compatibility issues on sites that implement user agent sniffing techniques. Closing WordsFirefox omits CPU architecture information going forward and will even hide architecture information entirely in the near future; that's a good step in the right direction. It could lead to incompatibilities, however on sites that sniff user agents. Now You: What is your take on the change? (via Sören Hentzschel) Summary  Article Name Mozilla omits CPU architecture information from Firefox's user agent Description Mozilla plans to omit CPU architecture information from Firefox's user agent and several supported APIs to reduce the digital fingerprint of Firefox users. Author Martin Brinkmann Publisher Ghacks Technology News Logo  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| One of the creepiest series in YouTube history is now a decade old and can’t seem to die - The Verge Posted: 22 Jun 2019 07:00 AM PDT  Ten years ago this week, a video appeared on the Something Awful forum describing a trove of unlabeled tapes that had been recorded as part of a student film project. The director had supposedly instructed for the tapes to be burned. But years after the project was suddenly ended, the video's narrator reveals that he kept them intact and decided to parse through the footage. "Should I find anything in any of them I will upload it to keep as a permanent record," the narrator wrote. Within a few uploads, the audience was subjected to a slew of clues as to what drove the director to cancel the project. The tapes were filled with shots of eerie symbols and a tall, creeping figure without a face and dressed in a suit. These videos were some of the first entries into Marble Hornets, an early fictional YouTube horror series that garnered a cult following and boasts a vibrant fandom across platforms even today. The series ran for five years, finishing on June 20th, the same date it began. Uploads were sporadic, some only a few seconds long. Others stretched out to the 15-minute length that's popular with creators today. The series is a beloved relic of old YouTube and early internet culture. "In internet years, 10 years is ancient. Like, might as well be Ancient Greece almost," Tim Sutton, one of the series's writers and actors, told The Verge. "We're only a couple years removed from the land of flash videos and 'You're the Man Now, Dog'. We're vintage internet." The series follows a character named Jay Merrick, played by Troy Wagner, as he attempts to understand what happened during the creation of a student film being shot by his friend, Alex Kralie. As he watches the tapes, Jay learns that Alex was being tormented by a figure known as "The Operator," a version of the mythical creature Slenderman that was popularized in the Something Awful forums. Forum members would Photoshop the creature into photos and share their creations with each other. This community-generated content inspired Marble Hornets' creators to craft an entire video series dedicated to the fandom. YouTube was an entirely different world then; monetizing content was more difficult, and the site was oftentimes a secondary platform for popular Newgrounds creators to publish their animations. It wasn't the corporate beast that it is today, filled with full-time creators, sponcon, and the late-night television clips that plague the Trending tab. It was this YouTube that I grew up with. I spent countless hours sitting in front of my family's boxy Dell desktop in our "office," which was really just a room with my grandpa's old rocking chair, framed quilts, and a faux-wood desk that could fit a computer. But it was at that computer where I would celebrate reaching the level necessary on World of Warcraft to purchase a crummy mount for the first time with my guildies over Ventrilo. It's where my friends and I would circle up to watch Weebl's Stuff and Salad Fingers, and it was also where I would binge Marble Hornets, unsure if it was a work of fiction or a real lost-footage investigation playing out in real time on YouTube. In high school, I would find myself sitting in this dark office, chatting with friends over ooVoo and watching the series together. By then, it had trickled out of the Something Awful forums and onto other platforms like Reddit and Tumblr, which is likely where my friends and I were able to find it. Marble Hornets was detached from the original forum source and left me, a naive and easily persuadable 15-year-old girl, terrified that Slenderman might be real. I was so naive and persuadable, in fact, that one night while chatting, my older friends were able to convince me to toss salt over my shoulders and spin around a few times to ensure the lanky, faceless freak wouldn't kill me in my sleep. It was the mystery and ambiguity of Marble Hornets that drew me in at a time when the internet and YouTube weren't overrun by brands and 4K, forty-minute vlogs. Myspace and Facebook had been around for some time, but my platforms of choice, Tumblr and Reddit, were less popular and baby websites in comparison. The space felt personal, and algorithms had yet to determine all of the content I consumed. Marble Hornets traveled to me, and likely many others, by word of mouth and niche online communities where people would discuss the series like they were investigating it alongside Jay. "The rise of social media made it easier to share," Sutton said. "There were still a couple of forums, which I guess are sort of old-fashioned now at this point. Having those tools to share those things hadn't been around all that long." Marble Hornets felt like the Evil Dead cult, horror classic of the internet to me. But instead of picking up a VHS tape at a dinky video store, I discovered it through threads and posts from other die-hard fans. Wagner told The Verge he was grateful for the fans who have been around all ten years, but also said new, younger kids are still finding it today. "There's new people coming into it always it seems," Wagner said. "Something like TV might have a problem with this because shows go off TV when they end. Whereas this is always on YouTube." The series transcends generations; many Gen Z kids are friending and following the Marble Hornets creators today. "The fan base has been getting gradually younger," Sutton said. "I get a lot of messages from kids that are like 14 and under. I got a comment on one of my Instagram posts the other day that said they were 11, and I was like, 'Are you kidding me?'" When I asked Sutton why he thought kids continue to follow and even cosplay as his character on contemporary apps like TikTok to this day, he offered an explanation that spoke to my past experience. On the internet, Marble Hornets appears to be a universal, hidden treasure. "It feels kind of like you're investigating something. You still feel like you're in on the mystery a little bit," Sutton said. "Especially because it never got like a huge, huge, huge following." He continued, "It feels like people are stumbling on something kind of secret. Especially if you're younger, because it's scary. It is sort of PG-13, but I would still imagine if you're like 12 or 13, it would be something you'd hide from your parents. I think that's part of the draw." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hulu with Live TV review: Frustrating menus, limited DVR spoil the deal - CNET Posted: 22 Jun 2019 04:00 AM PDT  With its recent price drop to $6, basic Hulu is one of the best deals in streaming. It offers gobs of current and past TV shows and movies for the price of a salted caramel mocha. Sadly, upgrading your subscription to Hulu with Live TV renders it a poor bargain. At $45 per month, or $60 if you want a DVR that actually lets you fast-forward through commercials, Hulu's live TV option pales in comparison to other premium live TV streaming services, especially YouTube TV. In its favor, Hulu with Live TV does offer a healthy mix of channels and a (limited) DVR at the cheapest tier, and the deep on-demand catalog of Hulu is a great addition. But the problems of Hulu's user interface, which may be forgivable in a service that costs $6 per month, are tough to overlook on a premium product.  Watch this: Live TV streaming services for cord cutters: How to choose... 2:44 What do you get?Hulu has offered the Live TV service for over two years now, and its price has remained relatively stable -- only increasing $5 a month. Other services have had bigger increases, including YouTube TV and DirecTV Now, both now up to $50. Hulu with Live TV expands on the existing on-demand service with over 60 live channels and throws in both a DVR and "guide." Live TV is available on all the major platforms including browsers, iOS, Android, Apple TV, Fire TV and Roku. Premium live TV streaming services compared
Apart from the unusual interface, which I'll cover shortly, the service's biggest gotcha is the $15-a-month charge for the Enhanced DVR. The standard, non-enhanced DVR on Hulu Live lacks the ability to fast-forward and rewind recorded or on-demand content. To get that functionality, you need to spring for the Enhanced DVR. Many users see commercial skipping as a must-have for any DVR. Adding it brings the monthly price of Hulu with Live TV up to $60, which is more expensive than the basic tier of any other live TV service. And all of the other premium services include cloud DVRs that let you skip commercials as part of their standard functions. Read more: Hulu vs. DirecTV Now vs. Sling TV vs. YouTube TV and more: Live TV channels compared Hulu's channel count is solid, better than PlayStation Vue but worse than YouTube TV and Fubo TV (meanwhile DirecTV Now has HBO). Check the channel lineup at the end of the article, or the big comparison above, to see if the Hulu with Live TV's mix is right for you. Important missing channels include AMC, BBC America, MTV and Comedy Central. A short time ago, Hulu and Spotify cooperated on a super-sweet $10 bundle and while the deal has now expired it still has a number of subscribers who are grandfathered in. In case you're wondering, you can't upgrade this package to Hulu with Live TV (I know, I tried). To upgrade, you'll need to create a new account and/or lose the bundle. What's it like to use? Go directly to the Kardashians. Do not pass go. Do not pay $45. Sarah Tew/CNET
I also dislike the two rows of different tabs at the top, which makes it more confusing to navigate. The first sub-tab on the home page is called Hulu Picks. Unlike Netflix's suggestions, it seems to simply push whatever the hell Hulu feels like showing. On my account, it was the same five shows regardless of the profile chosen -- the Kardashians and the Good Fight -- and these only disappeared if the particular profile had been created as a kid's one. Hulu's guide is the least-usable of any other streaming service out there. It again displays just four-and-a-half rows on each page and there's no 14-day guide to browse upcoming shows. The Roku/Fire TV interface only shows you the next show on the selected channel. You need to scroll down ad infinitum to see what's playing next. Meanwhile, Apple TV does lets you flick through and see more for the rest of the day -- but the current show still takes up most of the available space.  Likewise recording to the DVR is a pain -- you can only do it from the guide and not while watching a show. You need to enter the guide and either long-press the middle button (Apple/Roku) or press the hamburger button and click record. Every other VDR-available service lets you record straight from the timeline, or at least while the show is still playing. Should you get it?If you're a Hulu fan, like the mix of channels and don't need a DVR with commercial skipping, then Live TV could be what you're looking for. That is, if the interface doesn't drive you bonkers. If you are looking for a premium live TV service, YouTube TV is worth the extra $5 per month over Hulu. Its channel offering is better, its DVR is more robust, and its interface is much easier to use. Premium channels compared
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Technology - Latest - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
This post have 0 komentar
EmoticonEmoticon